Ten common myths about translation quality

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But your comments about the migrant children who, as you said, can make up 90% in some of Germany's classrooms, implied to me that the language could be disintegrating to a point where we couldn't be sure anymore that all children graduating after 8 or 9 years of mandatory schooling are indeed native German speakers.

My "But it might be a bit exaggerated to say that you can't ..." was meant as something someone could take away from what's happening in Germany, not as something you said, 'cause you didn't. Just to clarify.

Bernhard

Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:

most people have what they call a native language or best language. They know very well which one it is. This the norm. Then a minority don't have one, as some people claim in this thread. My question is: why should the exception rule the norm?

I agree that not having one single native language is possible and therefore people should not be discriminated because of this. But most associations and even Proz don't. If you want to prove your point with agencies/clients, then get certified/verified or join a professional association in your country.

The problem is we'll never agree on this, because it's impossible to argue with people who deny the very existence of native language and try and impose their view on the majority. In fact, I don't even know why we are actually talking about it.

Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:

most people have what they call a native language or best language. They know very well which one it is. This the norm. Then a minority don't have one, as some people claim in this thread. My question is: why should the exception rule the norm?

I agree that not having one single native language is possible and therefore people should not be discriminated because of this. But most associations and even Proz don't. If you want to prove your point with agencies/clients, then get certified/verified or join a professional association in your country.

The problem is we'll never agree on this, because it's impossible to argue with people who deny the very existence of native language and try and impose their view on the majority. In fact, I don't even know why we are actually talking about it.

Lincoln Hui wrote:


No one is imposing their views on you, we're just asking that you don't impose yours on us.

Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:



you want the exception to rule the norm... whatever you call it, most people have a dominant language. Are disputing this?

Lincoln Hui wrote:

I don't necessarily dispute that most will have a best language, but as long as you are using the term "native" to define it, you are going to run into trouble because there are a lot of people who don't define "native" as "best language"

And this issue was raised by mostly English native speakers who wish to change it so that it would be "fair", as all animals are equal.

How many years have you lived in South Asia, for example? I don't even claim to know what the norm is in Chinese, so what do you know about this so-called "norm" that you speak of anywhere outside the very very small circle of European languages?

Phil Hand wrote:



It's all very well asking for evidence and research, but sometimes common sense is enough.

Firstly, a misconception:
European languages are not a "very small circle". By number of speakers, they are easily the largest group in the world, but that's actually incidental, because we're really talking about the translation market here. And in terms of translation value, they dwarf any other group. Plus, like it or not, Europe and the US are the more advanced economies, and they are where standards get dreamed up. Standards arise out of many years of high quality practice. That experience isn't there in the non-European world.

Now, there are places where there is a disconnect between native and dominant. I do some work with a company from the Gulf, and they say that in some countries there, a lot of business and education is done in English. South Asia is another relevant example; so is South Africa. But most people are still educated in one of their native languages. Think of all the world's English, Spanish and Chinese speakers - the languages of instruction in English speaking, Spanish-speaking countries and the PRC and Taiwan are the same as the native language of the people who live there. And that's easily more than half the world's population. Add in Japan, Francophone countries, Germany... In terms of numbers, it's simple.

You're right that some people grow up in rather different linguistic environments, but as someone said above, translation is not a human right. If a person does not have a native language which they use excellently in professional contexts, they are probably not qualified to be a translator. That's not the end of the world. Nor does it mean that they can never translate. But we're language professionals. If a person doesn't have a massively strong language in which she "feels" both meaning and tone, then she isn't really going to be able to join our ranks.

José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
This is getting pointless. Going back to the OP, a most common myth about translation quality is that "hiring a native speaker of the target language represents fail-proof quality assurance".

Ty Kendall wrote:

As in the mammoth thread - focus keeps being diverted to the exceptions, not the rule. There's nothing wrong with having exceptions, acknowledging it, accommodating for it, but there are people on this thread who want to re-design the world to suit the exceptions.